Filed: Oct. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRADLEY DEAN BIDGOOD, a/k/a Brad, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-32-5-02-BR) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRADLEY DEAN BIDGOOD, a/k/a Brad, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-32-5-02-BR) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRADLEY DEAN BIDGOOD, a/k/a Brad,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
Judge. (CA-95-32-5-02-BR)
Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001
Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph H. Craven, James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Dean Bidgood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying the government’s motion to reduce his sentence under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We dismiss the appeal from the denial of
the Rule 35(b) motion because the order is not reviewable. See
United States v. Pridgen,
64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1995).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2